USA - Charles Flores (TX)

USA - Texas. Advocacy for Charles Flores

March 14, 2026:

March 14, 2026 - Texas. Advocacy for Charles Flores

Coalition Questions Hypnosis-Based Testimony’s Reliability in Flores’ case

A coalition of advocates, scientists and entertainers is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the death penalty case of Charles Flores, arguing that his conviction relied heavily on eyewitness testimony that emerged only after a witness was subjected to “investigative hypnosis.”

In a press release titled “Penn & Teller, Other Diverse Voices Urge Supreme Court to Review ‘Hypnotized Witness’ Wrongful Conviction,” supporters of Charles Don Flores report that a coalition of advocates, such as Penn & Teller, the American Psychological Association, crime survivor Jennifer Thompson, Texas Defender Service and Dallas County exoneree Christopher Scott, have filed amicus curiae briefs urging the United States Supreme Court to review Flores’s case.

According to the press release, Flores remains on Texas’s death row after being convicted largely based on an eyewitness identification that surfaced only after the witness was subjected to what is described as “investigative hypnosis.” Supporters argue that the case raises serious concerns about the reliability of eyewitness testimony and whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has failed to apply laws that were supposed to prevent wrongful executions.

The press release explains that Flores was convicted in connection with the 1998 killing of Betty Black in Farmers Branch, Texas. Black’s next-door neighbor initially told police that she saw two white men with long hair leaving a Volkswagen Beetle and entering the home shortly before the murder. However, Flores is Hispanic and had short, shaved hair at the time, the release shares.

Supporters note in the release that the witness’s earliest descriptions did not match Flores. The release confirms that she also failed to identify him in a photo lineup conducted shortly after the crime. She further produced a composite sketch that “did not resemble Mr. Flores in any way.”

According to the press release, the witness’s identification changed after she participated in a hypnosis session conducted by law enforcement. The session was reportedly led by a police officer while a lead detective involved in the investigation observed.

During the hypnosis session, the officer reportedly guided the witness through a relaxation exercise that was intended to help her recall details from the day of the crime. As reflected in the transcript that was referenced in the release, the witness repeatedly described one of the suspects as having long hair, as she stated, “I see it to his shoulders.”

The press release adds that before concluding the session, the officer told the witness she might recall additional details later. During Flores’s trial, which took place more than a year after the crime, the witness identified him for the first time in court and said she was “100% sure” he was one of the men she had seen.

The release also notes that Flores was the only Hispanic person present in the courtroom when the identification was made.

Supporters in the press release argue that hypnosis can contaminate memory rather than clarify it. The amicus briefs explain that “investigative hypnosis” is not considered a reliable method of retrieving memory and may instead create confidence in recollections that have been influenced by suggestion.

Penn & Teller filed a brief offering their perspective of investigative hypnosis “as master manipulators of perception,” as the press release emphasizes. The entertainers argue that some of the same psychological techniques used in stage illusions can influence how people remember events.

The release quotes from the brief that “there is no ‘delight of being deceived,’ and serious harm can occur” when these types of techniques are used in criminal investigations instead of for entertainment. The brief also challenges the idea that hypnosis can accurately replay memories since human memory does not function “like a video recorder.”

The press release further reports that the American Psychological Association submitted a brief discussing decades of research on eyewitness memory. According to the APA, memory does not “record, preserve, and replay events with high fidelity, ‘as a videotape recorder would.’”

The organization emphasizes that early identification procedures tend to be the most reliable because they occur before memories are influenced by outside factors. As cited in the release, “initial tests of an eyewitness’s memory are the most reliable because they occur before the witness’s memory has become contaminated.” The APA also states that a witness’s failure to identify a suspect during early procedures can be “particularly probative of innocence.”

The press release also highlights a brief filed by Jennifer Thompson, who once mistakenly identified an innocent man as her attacker. Thompson later learned that her confident identification was wrong when DNA evidence exonerated Ronald Cotton after he had spent years in prison.

According to the release, Thompson now advocates for reforms to prevent similar wrongful convictions and warns that mistaken identifications “harm everyone—the wrongfully convicted, the original victims, and the community left vulnerable when the real perpetrator escapes justice.”

Texas Defender Service also filed a brief arguing that Flores’s case reflects the type of situation that lawmakers intended to address when the state created procedures allowing courts to reconsider convictions based on outdated or flawed scientific evidence, the release states.

Dallas County exoneree Christopher Scott similarly urged the Supreme Court to review the case, noting that wrongful convictions often share common factors, such as “unreliable or discredited forensic science” and mistaken eyewitness identifications.

The press release further notes that Texas lawmakers banned testimony obtained through investigative hypnosis. This occurred in 2023 as the Texas Legislature passed a law prohibiting statements made during law enforcement hypnosis sessions from being used against defendants in criminal trials.

Despite this change in the law, the release notes that Flores remains on death row. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review his petition during a conference in May. On Flores’ case see also HoC 08/05/2020.

https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/death-penalty-hypnosis-witness/